Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25512105›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology journal2015

Optomagnetic read-out enables easy, rapid, and cost-efficient qualitative biplex detection of bacterial DNA sequences.

Rebecca S Bejhed, Teresa Zardán Gómez de la Torre, Peter Svedlindh, Mattias Strömberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rebecca S BejhedDepartment of Engineering Sciences, Uppsala University, Ångström Laboratory, Uppsala, Sweden.
Teresa Zardán Gómez de la Torre
Peter Svedlindh
Mattias Strömberg

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an increasing need to develop novel bioassay methods for low-cost, rapid, and easy-to-use multiplex detection of pathogens in various fields ranging from human infectious disease diagnosis, drinking water quality control, to food safety applications. Due to their unique advantages, magnetic and optomagnetic bioassay principles are particularly promising for biodetection platforms that will be used in developing countries. In this paper, an optomagnetic method for rapid and cost-efficient qualitative biplex detection of bacterial DNA sequences is demonstrated. Within less than two hours, the assay gives an answer to whether none, both, or only one of the bacterial DNA sequences is present in the sample. The assay relies on hybridization of oligonucleotide-functionalized magnetic nanobeads of two different sizes to rolling circle amplification (RCA) products originating from two different bacterial targets. The different bead sizes are equipped with different oligonucleotide probes, complementary to only one of the RCA products, and the read-out is carried out in the same sample volume. In an optomagnetic setup, the frequency modulation of transmitted laser light in response to an applied AC magnetic field is measured. The presented methodology is potentially interesting for low-cost screening of pathogens relating to both human and veterinary medicine in resource-poor regions of the world.

Indexed as

BacteriaBiosensing TechniquesDeveloping CountriesDNA, BacterialDNA, CircularHumansMagnetite NanoparticlesNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesOligonucleotide ProbesParticle SizeDNA, BacterialDNA, CircularMagnetite NanoparticlesOligonucleotide ProbesBiplex detectionMagnetic nanobeadsOptomagnetic setupPadlock probe ligationRolling circle amplification

Identifiers

PMID25512105
PMCPMC4406137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.